About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 17
CSPAN2 11
LANGUAGE
English 30
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
, and everything, they give big tax breaks for the oil companies. the big manufacturers. they're taking jobs away from us. and why they think it is best to do that. i need an answer to that, because i work 40 years of my life, and now i'm disabled. and now they're talking about cutting everything. i just don't think -- i've even put my life on the line for this country, vietnam. why they think it's the right thing to do. host: thanks for your call. next up, a comment from hewitt, texas. tony, a republican there. good morning. caller: good morning. how's everybody there this morning? host: it's a little hot both temperature-wise and internally i think here. caller: yeah. you know, we deal with a few facts here this morning. that cut, cap and balance that was passed did two things that everybody just is totally bent out of shape about. one of which is that it would raise the debt ceiling, and we would give that community organizer everything he wanted. it also, at the time, would say that the united states would even have a downgrade in its debt rating. and what do we do? well, you got the presiden
of congress get themselves. anda raw deal in a big way. -- a raw deal in a big way. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: yield one minute to dr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: thank you. mr. speaker, but for the president of the united states who serves today a a democrat-controlled congress over the last two years we wouldn't be here today debating this. $3.8 trillion added to our debt and continuing on that same glide path. mr. speaker, we're here today because people across america, businesses, cities, states, all have to balance their budgets. the only game in this country, the only entity that doesn't have to balance its budget is the federal government. and that's what's ruining our economy. so all we're asking for in this bill is simply to immediately cut $111 billion in fiscal 2012, begin capping our spending rates, bringing it down to what's traditional, 18%, and then finally passing a balanced budget amendment that will finally put the res
, this is a debate about our economy, and frankly is a big debate about the future of our country. until recently, the president was demanding that the congress increased the debt limit with no strings attached. as a matter of fact, the treasury secretary sent me a letter two days after we were sworn in demanding that we give him a clean increase in the debt limit. i responded and told the treasury secretary at the american people would not tolerate a clean increase in the debt ceiling unless there was serious spending cuts attached and will reform in the way we spent the american people's money. i went to new york city in may and gave a speech to the new york economic club where i outlined the challenges we were facing and i made it clear that we would not increase the debt limit for the cuts that exceeded that increase in the debt limit and that there would be no new taxes and that there would be serious spending reforms put in place. it is time to get serious. i'm confident that the leaders here in the congress can act, the white house will give serious, we will. >> your own aides say that the
for the tabloids. host: what about the broadsheets? guest: it is known occasionally. there was a big scandal about mp's expenses last year, which came from information that is the voice of -- information that is the will serve and got on a computer disk. my newspaper paid for that because they thought it was in the public interest. that is a rare instance of a broadsheet paper paying for information. for the tabloids, we call it checkbook journalism. salacious information about a night out on the town with a celebrity or pop star or encounters with celebrities. that culture has grown and become more insidious over the past 20 or 30 years. host: how would you describe, to help put it in perspective -- by the way, we will put the numbers on the screen as we continue this conversation about the phone hacking investigation in the u.k. prime minister cameron spoke this morning at a problem about it and we carry that live on c- span -- spoke this morning in parliament about it and we carry that live on c-span2. we carry rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks yesterday and we will speak about that. how do you
to be a big divide. how do you tweak that to make the two of them happy? that might be a tall order. i can't think what would make the tea party satisfied with this bill, but balanced budget amendment? >> right. there has within talk around here unconfirmed that that is the sweetener being added to the boehner bill, a balanced budget amendment. but really this is an extraordinary evening in an extraordinary episode, greta, one that political scientists will be studying for 50 years or more. we watch both divided government at its most dysfunctional. and a president who to many observers appears to be side lined for the time being as -- congressional leaders work behind closed doors to hammer this out and deep divisions whereby a powerful speaker john boehner is having difficulty coralling votes he needed. remember he lost 59 republican votes. you have this large freshman class, 80 members, a lot backed by the tea party and elected here to, on a promise of cutting spending and take one exyampem. tim scott from south carolina was one of two freshman for the first time ever given a seat at th
. well, yes and no. in their derrick the church was the big power. kings and queens could not move without the permission of the church. nowadays it is big business. when you have big business influence washington, d.c., people like yourself, this is what you are going to get. you cannot have foxes guarding the hen house. host: all right. your response. guest: if you talk about specific tax credits, i think he's right. i don't think it is just big business. i think it is the aarp, i think it is the big labor unions. i think it is everybody. the whole fact is the federal the whole fact is the federal government is too big and it is in areas it shouldn't be. if you read the constitution, you also read the enumerated powers which gives limited powers to the federal government and specifically states everything not listed here is reserved for the people in the states. the reason we have a $3.6 trillion, $3.7 trillion budget, is a trillion and a half of that or more is stuff that's not our responsibility in the first place. sho look, i'm one of the few republicans that stands up and say
it extreme, radical. imagine that. only a big spending washington liberal could think it would be radical to require washington to start living within its means like families have been doing for years. and so frankly american families would say it's about time, welcome to the party. and instead some people think you can just live in this fantasy land where you can keep tax, taxing, spending, borrowing money from china and act like the day of wreckening never is never going to come and kick the -- wrenging is never going to come and kick the can down the road. it's time to say enough is new. we're going to deal with our problems nod. we're going to set priorities today and do the tough things people sent us to do and that means cutting, capping and balancing the federal budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the gentleman from maryland is back and is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. again, the choice is not whether we put in place a plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. the issue is how we do that.
in transforming themselves, she's one of the big reasons why. please help me in welcoming to the stage, liz schuller. [applause] >> thank you. all right. thank you, barry, for the introduction. and i'd like to think raj for raising the bar. thanks a lot for the rest of us and not those creative messaging tools that we all need to address inequality. i wish i would have heard her before my speech. so why am i here as part of this panel? the whole point of what i want to talk to you today is the power of collective action and how it could counter the rise in inequality and how unions fit into that picture. now, when i think about inequality, especially, as of late, i think about those teachers in wisconsin, construction workers in ohio, nurses in new hampshire, who have been locked out and denied their basic rights to collective bargaining. we've seen what it looks like the state capital in wisconsin and we show you now what's happening in office buildings all across this country. ♪ >> here's to america's workers. when the economy was down, they sacrificed. during tough times when executive
procedure, the regular order but have attempted to solve this big problem in secret, behind closed doors with just a few people. i believe that is contrary to the historical understanding of the role of congress and i'm not happy about it, i oppose it and i object to it and i expect an appropriate amount of time to consider whatever plan comes >> with titles like "slander," and coulter has something to say. now, your chance to talk to the best-selling author. in death, for three hours starting at noon on both tv. >> the former u.s. comptroller general david walker of the nation pose a growing debt and budget deficit challenges. from "washington journal,", this is 30 minutes. the former u.s. comptroller general and now founder and ceo of the comeback american initiative, david walker print a good morning. forve said it is a bad idea the congress and president to flirt, so to speak, with the august 2nd deadline of hitting a possible debt default. what do you think is going on right now and are concerned there is not a deal in place yet? guest: i am concerned. if everybody is true to their
with the pie. [unintelligible] host: do you think that this is a big deal at all? in aer: in a way, yes, and a way, no. he is a nice man, but he is too old. it takes a man that this young to do something like that host: do you think you could run all of those companies? caller: me? i am a painter. host: i know. i have your painting in my office. caller: my wife is looking at me and telling me to tell you good morning. host: good morning. send me your e-mail address and i will send you a picture of it in profit -- in my office. caller: listen, my wife's birthday is tomorrow, she turned 81. host: that is right. you married an older woman. mr. peterson, you enjoy that heat wave in texas. we have got to get moving. we appreciate it. this would message, regarding the phone hacking scandal -- host: mike is a republican in arizona. hello. caller: i can see this going on in great britain, i guess the police are involved. but then they are doing it for us in the same manner. scanning e-mails, looking for certain words and what ever. i do not see any difference. i mean, they are exchanging inform
're now at the president's big deal target, which we're not going to meet under the gang of six or any of the other constructs around here, cancel the social security tax holiday, borrow the money one more year, invest it in infrastructure, put millions to work, when those millions go to work, they'll be paying taxes, that'll reduce the deficit by about another quarter. we solved 3/4 of the problem without killing programs essential to the american people and without cutting taxes on the job creators. the gang of six is proposing that billionaires should see their taxes cut by about 25% or 30% that will help us balance the budget. time to get back to the real world and out of "alice in wonderland." the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. tompson: thank you, mr. speaker. since 1947, every august, the little league baseball world series is held in pennsylvania within pennsylvania's fifth congressional district. each year, little league international recognizes little league gradua
. president. my name is amanda. i am a big fan. i am originally from iowa. >> nice. >> yes. i am an atheist. in 2008, you asserted no organization receiving taxpayer funds would be able to discriminate in hiring or firing based on a person's religion. however, you've not rescinded the executive order that permits this discrimination. when it is difficult for a person to get a job based on her skills, what would you say to a woman who has been denied employment because of her religion or lack of religious beliefs by a taxpayer funded organization? >> this is a very difficult issue, but a more narrow one and i think might be implied. it is very straightforward that people should not be discriminated against for race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. what has happened is there has been a carved out dating back to president clinton's presidency for religious organizations and they're hiring for particular purposes, and this is always a tricky part of the first amendment. on the one hand, the first amendment ensures there's freedom of religion. on the other hand, we want to m
, vote for this amendment. mr. president, how big is this scheme? well, here's what our own permanent subcommittee on investigations has told us: "experts have estimated that the total loss to the treasury from offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion per year, including $40 billion to $70 billion from individuals and another $30 billion from corporations engaging in offshore tax evasion. abusive tax shelters add tens of billions of dollars more." mr. president, you want to lock in these abuses? you prefer to pay more in taxes yourself so that people can engage in these scams? vote for this amendment. vote for the legislation that's before us. vote for what is on the floor because you'll protect them forever more. mr. president, i end as i began. this is perhaps the most ill-conceived, ill-considered, internally inconsistent legislation that i have ever seen in my 25 years in the united states senate. i hope my colleagues have the wisdom to vote "no." i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i just would lik
forward to reduce the deficit in a big way modeled after these bipartisan commissions, where there's been pretty good bipartisan agreeme agreement. but efforts to forge a grand compromise, bringing the deficit down by $4 trillion, have been abandoned by republican leaders over and over. i -- i have not supported every detail in these grand compromise efforts. i don't want to do anything to undermine medicare or social security or medicaid, programs that have worked for generations now and programs that millions of ohioans depend on, for middletown to ashtaboula to toledo and gallipolis. that's because i wanted a more balanced approach. i know the presiding officer did too. but as days and weeks and weeks and months go by, we're now only days away from default. we're simply running out of time. that's what the senate bill is about, protecting us from default. the spirit of continued compromise again, the majority leader has come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. it's truly a compromise because it meets the republicans' main criteria, it contains spending cuts to rou
is not for light or transient reasons. it's a big, big deal when the united states government has been for months and will continue to be borrowing about 40% of every dollar we spend, running up the largest deficits the nation has ever seen. and so what the law says, that -- the law and the united states code says you should have a budget. and when you set a budget, you take all of the bills that are out there and tell them how much money they have to spend so your total amount of money at the end does not exceed a dangerous level for the c. that's whac -- for the country. that's what a budget does. and so we're going to seek and repeatedly call to this senate's attention that we got the cart before the horse. we're spending money without a budget and we're going to have to have a budget, else we are not in control of our spending. and once you have a budget, it takes 60 votes to violate the budget. you can kind of stick to it if you make up your mind to do so. and we don't have to violate it and burst the budget. so that's -- that's what we're talking about today and it's a matter of great serio
, but it means, mr. president, that we can't be raising taxes on the job creators, and there is a big debate right now about how do we get ourselves out of this fiscal mess. i would submit to my colleagues that the real issue here is spending. if you go back to the foundation of our country, the year 1800, we were only spending 2% of our entire economic output on the government, the federal government. this year we're going to spend 24% to 25%. the historical average over the past 40 years is about 20.6%. we are dramatically higher in terms of what we are spending on our federal government as a percentage of our entire economy. to me, clearly, we don't have a revenue issue here in washington. we have a spending issue. which would suggest that we ought to get after spending, after federal spending, particularly spending that is -- is duplicative, redundant, there are so many things in the federal government that we spend money on that we need to get that waste and that -- and all those types of wasteful spending out of our spending here in washington, d.c., but we also have to focus on those
. there was a big issue at the end of the last congress that threatened a meltdown over whether or not we were going to extend the package of tax cuts. then we have the cr, threatening to shut down of the government. now we are having a high-stakes game of chicken that could have significant implications for the global economy as well as devastation for what we face to going forward. and then you know what? we will be right back with that with the budget, not once but twice, before the election. most in the house want to see something that is more sustainable and allows us to get back to the business of helping all americans get back to work, rebuilding the country, and dealing with long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes to deal with theoretical issues with the budget. host: to be clear, if the reid proposal could come before the house, would you vote for it? guest: i have not seen it. i had a dinner with a friend of mine in the senate last night who says that they are interested in the details. they have not seen the details yet. i am not going to commit to something that no one i know ha
, was part of another big debate over federal spending. and out of that came the graham-hollings legislation. we talked to him on camera. here's just a clip of his comments on washington today. >> nothing gets done. the atmosphere is the game. the game is re-election. you've got to get the money for re-election. in other words in 1998, 12 years ago, i had to spend -- i had to raise, excuse me, $8.5 million. now, $8.5 million is $30,000 every week, each week for six years. it's not just raising money the year ahead. it's raising it for all six years. and you're raising it not only for yourself because your colleagues will help you, the committees will want to keep that seat. so when your time is up. so you are always out there raising money. and the name of the game is make no mistake, play the fence when you get back to washington. got no idea of paying the bill. they haven't paid the bill for 10 years. host: fritz hollings will be 90 later this year. expressing his frustration. he's part of the many voices we will include in our "charleston weekend" on "book tv" and "american history tv." a
nothing would do. now, after we have restored some confidence here by this big step of doing nothing, we could do another half of nothing and put people back to work. now, how could we do half of nothing and put people back to work? president obama has adopted this cockamamie republican idea of a social security tax holiday putting people to work. i know a lot of families that could use an extra 20 bucks a week, but them spending 20 bucks a week for food on the tape table, doesn't put people back to work. if you are unemployed, you don't get the 20 bucks. we are borrowing $120 billion to do that under the guise this is creating jobs. and the president last night mentioned he wants to create jobs. guess what? it's not working. we do half a nothing. we allow the social security tax holiday to expire. doesn't create any jobs. we don't borrow the $110 billion from china to put in the social security trust fund. instead, we borrow $110 billion to put people back to work in private sector jobs. we resolve to begin to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. $110 billion applied to the 150,000 bri
they weren't going to pay their taxes? of course they'd be in big trouble. and the senate is not in trouble but the country is in trouble because the senate is not doing its job and neither the house nor the senate did its job in the last congress for the first time ever and that's how we go into three years since we had a work document that we should have to work with. and what do we do this week? the disappointment to all three of us is we said we wanted to stay this week and deal with these issues. we started out trying to deal with the libya resolution which apparently wasn't important enough to deal with last thursday when we were going to take a week to work in our states. and then when people on the republican side said we really think we ought to be debating the reason we were supposed to stay, we still don't do that. we have this amendment -- i think it was supposed to be and is a sense of the senate that millionaires aren't paying enough taxes. now, we all understand -- we all understand the politics of that, just like we understand the politics of no accelerating depreciation for
that republicans are making a big deal about the debt ceiling increase because they want to be able to spend taxpayer dollars without ever having to check or balance to ask if that spending is necessary. enough is enough. it's time to end this irresponsible spending. families in southwest missouri cannot spend 42% more than they take in and neither should the federal government. i came to washington to stop spending and abuse of government. that's why i'll fight this debt ceiling increase without a serious plan to reduce our debt. and the people of southwest missouri agree with me. i have hundreds of phone calls and emails and messages in my office about the debt ceiling. it is something the people of the 7th district feel strongly about and i want to share their thoughts with you. 51% of the calls and letters to my office say don't raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances. 26% say raise it with substantial cuts. 10% are ok to raise it whatever. and 10% say you can raise it but do not increase taxes. the people have spoken. there is an old saying that if you owe the bank $1,000 that's
round table, a small business owner told me, quote, the government is out of control, it's too big and i don't like it, closed quote. well, i don't like it either and it's costing our country jobs. it's time for washington to do what's right. we need to make the tough choices necessary to get our nation's fiscal house in order. no one said it would be easy, but it is certainly necessary. the legislation before us will end unsustainable spending and put this nation back on a fiscal path. i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland continue to reserve? mr. van hollen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: regarding what sort of amendment that thomas jefferson may have been looking for today whether we would be looking for in what we call a super majority or what have you, jefferson would be going even further than what we are doing here today and say that congress should not have the ability to borrow at all. the amendment we are putting fo
that he likes to call a big deal. anyone who's looked at the figures knows that it isn't. but the larger point here is that the american people have already won this debate. no one, not even the president, can claim to support the status quo anymore, even when in fact he does. but of course winning the debate isn't nearly as important as achieving the reforms that are needed to convince the world that we're actually serious about getting our fiscal house in order. that's why republicans continue to hold out for significant reforms and that's why we'll continue to fight for serious long-term reforms this week. republicans have tried to persuade the president of the need for a serious course correction, but weeks of negotiations have shown that his commitment to big government is simply too great to lead to the kind of long-term reforms we need to put us on a path to both balance and economic growth. so we've decideed to bring our case to the american people. the president recently cited a poll that suggests americans want to see balance in this debate. i'd point him to another poll showin
essentially go to another country and export through that country, put on, for example, "made in korea" -- big implications with these trade agreements -- and end up shipping those goods to the united states. and senator blunt and his constituents have made the correct point that that's, again, taking away jobs from middle-class folks. but we have got to get back here on the floor of the united states senate to the issue of jobs. that's the most important question for our constituents, madam president. staff told me on the way over here that a recent survey of businesses cites again their number-one concern, that sales are going down in their stores. and i think everybody here in the senate knows you can often go to a store on a weekend or an evening and you see hardly anybody there because middle-class people are very worried about what's ahead and simply because of these economic times do not have the money to go in and buy those goods and arrange for those services that in an economy that requires they be in the marketplace, they simply don't have the resources for it. so i hope my colleagu
couldn't get along well enough in those days to spend more money on big programs. there was legislation that was passed that supported in a bipartisan way by president clinton and republicans in congress to limit spending. so there was some spending restraint. but the reality is the last time we had our fiscal house in order and were spending less money than we were taking in was a time in which the economy was growing. if we really want to address the issue of balancing our budget, we should focus much more attention than we have on growing the economy, putting people to work and allowing as they work that the taxes will be collected. the greatest opportunity we have to improve people's lives is to create an environment in which jobs are created, in which employers feel comfortable in investing in the future and buying plant and equipment and putting people to work. and so while it's cut, cap and balance today, we need to make certain we don't forget, in my view, that fourth component: grow the economy. and in my view, that means a tax code that is certain and fair, that doesn't change
on it but i do know that it was in an effort to try to make sure that the rates that the two big providers in mississippi, and, of course, energy was heavily invested in louisiana as well. but i don't know the details on that but i do know. >> mr. mack so, have you had any experience with this kind of think? >> we have not. >> mr. serino, i'm going to the i am going to continue on this. chairman, i would love to talk to you about it and senator mccaskill and i have been talking about it. you know, if this community would've happened to have a municipal provider, let's say they paid 10% under the stafford act of the repair costs, they would be passing along to .5 million to the ratepayers instead of 25 million. court if they have a 75, 25 sure, they'll be passing along 6.2 the ratepayers instead of 25 million. those rate players pay federal taxes in exactly the same way that the neighboring community of carthage that has a municipal utility pays federal taxes. we have more experience with this with devastating i storms. we have miles and miles of polls broken off, and the mileage that is in
. speaker, in this debate, let us not lose sight of the big picture. the people who send us here want some pretty straightforward things. they want their media free and punchy but they want them within the law. they want their police independent and strong but honest and incorruptible. and they want their politicians to sort out a mess that has socked their faith in the key institutions in our country. we should be clear today that we will not let them down. >> here, here! >> order, the question is this house have considered the matter of public confidence in the media and the police. mr. ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i welcome this debate and i think in starting this debate all of us should remember what brings us here. because parliament would not have been recalled today if it had not been for the revelations by the hacking of millie doweler's phone. that revelation shocked our country and turned something that had seemed to be about the lives of politicians, footballers and celebrities into something very different. about the lives of others who never sought the public eye. and it is th
parents to protect entitlements for big oil companies, billionaire corporate executives who travel the world in private jets and millionaires who believe they are entitled to all of the tax loopholes they're getting now after the biggest tax cut in history, entitled to tax cuts but not obligated to create american jobs. contrary to the false rhetoric we hear from the other side about a correlation between entitlements for the wealthy and job creation. the hard right wing of the republican party has come to the table willing to give up nothing, unwilling to accept an offer by the president and democrats of trillions of dollars in spending cuts, potential savings in entitlement programs and tax reform options, all of which they have been demanding, unless we agree to protect to the entitlements that exist for the wealthy. not even a single penny on the revenue side of the option. don't touch those entitlements for the big five oil companies. don't touch the entitlements for the corporate jets. don't touch the entitlements for the racehorses. don't touch any of those entitlements give
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)